Essentially, it's the same thing. They call it a "rectenna", but it's the same thing - a rectifier and an antenna. Definitely stolen tech, but they're using a different method to implement it.
It's also worth noting that according to the article, they're not using the same frequency for their microwaves as a microwave does. A microwave is pretty well tuned (frequency wise, you can change the amplitude all you want) to heat up water (I think). This tech applies the "magnetron" in a different manner, so it may not end up causing cancer in the little birdies who fly through the high-strung virtual cables.
Question is, are they still doing local power distribution through standard "telephone poles"? Is this just for transport from the plant to the city hall, from whence it is dispersed across the city, or am I going to have to install a rectenna on my roof and pay $40 a month to keep it maintained?
High voltage power lines do not cause cancer. There may be a correlation, but it's probably about the same as the correlation of construction workers and cancer patients.
Microwave, however, does tend to cause cancer, boiling, and generally being baked. That's the idea. That's why there's lead in your microwave oven's faceplate. It's really not just there to make it harder for you to see the secrets of the microwave.
Do you need the DMCA, or not? I seem to see a lot of people saying the DMCA isn't needed, but I'm not so sure.
What provisions are there for redistribution of material via the internet, in federal law? Are there any, save the DMCA?
It is the 'Digital Millenium Copyright Act,' right? I mean, it specializes in copyright infringement violations on the internet. Isn't that essentially what the poster is asking about? If so, why do people keep saying "You don't need the DMCA," and if not, why does the DMCA exist at all?
Or rather, why was it voted into place?
Distributing music online is a violation of copyright license. Isn't that the main focus of the DMCA? I'm not a particular proponent of the DMCA, but it would seem that the theory behind it (not the make-RIAA-money theory, the protect-property-rights theory) is solid.
I suppose an appropriate analogy is a gun: In dishonorable hands, it is a tool for evil. In honorable hands, it can be a tool for good. The same is true of any tool; the DMCA is only a tool, even if it does have a bad history.
Ethics does tend to slow things down a little bit, yes. But if you just tell people to shut up, you're not leaving yourself open to what may be a fatal flaw in our science.
People tend to abandon ethics while they build, and I've seen this in comments for the past couple of days - regarding possible dangers as negligible and to be ignored. But they're not. We're moving forward in technology (and perhaps science) faster than any other time in history, but we abandon ethics at every possible turn. Yes, let's take a quick jaunt through history.
Let's look at physics - bombs. Or chemistry - chemical weapons. Or perhaps you think medicine is safe - viral "biological" weapons come from this field. Computers yield more ways to monopoly and oppression. Technology is typically accompanied by ethics, but then those ethics are traditionally thrown out the window in the name of "Progress." So yes, perhaps ethics are the enemy of progress, but perhaps progress isn't such a great thing after all.
My university has had filesharing in the lawbook for a couple of years now, after the RIAA started suing our Computing Services director (my boss). He's not sharing files, but he's being personally sued for allowing this to happen.
Just how much is the RIAA able to stretch the law? It doesn't matter that my boss can't actually be personally considered guilty in any way for the actions of the students. But the RIAA sues him anyway. It's like they're mimicking the actions of the trash who run around suing McDonald's for coffee that's too hot, and the like. Just play legal hardball, and most people will cave in.
My boss did. Filesharing is punished pretty severely - most people don't know that downloading is acceptable (strange RIAA thing, they don't bother with people who download, only people who upload), so now when someone sees KaZaA open on my computer, they give me a weird look and mutter about me losing my connection.
It's actually pretty nice. Now I get decent speed.:-D
What is your background in law? You're saying a lot of facts without giving any basis for any of them.
If a law is broken in the act of obtaining evidence, it is not legally admissable, regardless of who acquires it. Decrypting encrypted transmissions is illegal. Reading someone's network traffic is illegal.
Is it wrong to want to make money? Microsoft is a corporation, they have a lot of salaries to pay, and they're not nonprofit. Have no illusions; they're out to make money. Is it any surprise that they don't want an anticommercial license like the GPL infecting their own license? Well, it shouldn't be.
Microsoft needs to sell its products. In the past,/.'ers have complained that MS would not release any of its source code. We've complained that MS steals GPL source code. But now we're complaining that they're out to make money? Er.
I'm against big business as much as the next socialist, but I'm afraid Microsoft isn't my biggest worry right now. They're in the process of reform, cut them some slack and let them still make money, huh? Just be proud - they're afraid of OSS enough to do this whole reform thing.
This kind of a thing could potentially be used as a more sophisticated "exclusive filter" to counter spam propogation - emails that do not appear connected to a social network could simply be blocked entirely. This would require the "social network" to require two-way links - thus sending an email would not create a connection between two people, but sending and receiving an email would.
In any case, it's another way to look at spam protection.
The world of MUDs isn't dead, just hiding. I code for a mud in my spare time to, among other things, improve my programming ability. The world is still out there, still growing, and still what you remember. You've grown up, and such is admirable in a world where people play online games into their 30s and 40s, never realizing there's a real world that's far more interesting.
It's possible that this technology could take 20-30 years to develop. But unlikely.
Watch the development of technology. It comes faster and faster as our population grows and our tools become more precise and more accurate.
We have better methods of communication now. Better organization in our companies. Resources are more readily available. More minds are put to the task of computing, even idly (slashdot itself). More minds pour over textbooks of theory and new technology. Advancement is not considered the realm of the geeks, but the realm of the populous, or more so than it used to be.
If this sort of thing started in the 50's with major electronics, no wonder it took 50 years to get this far! We hadn't done anything like this ever before. The sheer number of scientists working on electrical engineering back then was a pebble compared to the mountain working on quantum computing now, with better resources, a more solid foundation, and a clear goal.
Oh, my.. you're a troll, but what the hell. I've had the same thought in my head - "America is afraid" - for a while. And yeah, we are.. maybe it'll be good for us. But..
When was the last time you heard about a civilian getting an Anthrax letter? Have you heard anything about bombing homes, hotels, anything of that sort? Bombing national symbols, huge economic and political buildings, sending diseases like Anthrax (a noncontagious bio terrorist attack, with a striking area of less than a cubic mile?) to purely political offices?
Does that sound like terrorists to you? Or does bombing runs that take out who-knows-what (certainly not us) sound like terrorism? Not knowing whether the airplanes flying overhead are going to drop MRE's or smartbombs? "Oops.. that bomb missed and hit a small village.. our bad"
"I never respected Bush before. But the way he is handling this has made me reconsider." Sorry.. no.. I'm not buying that Bush is cool. I know better. His advisors are finally getting their asses in gear and telling him what to do. They were afraid of big bad Bush Sr before, but now that Bush Jr. has gotten us all into a war, someone has to get us out of it. Believe me, it's not GW Bush. It's his advisors, who've been there for a long time.
Come on, people. Think with your heads, not your hearts. Think about motivation and intelligence. Osama is a smart man. He's not targetting all of our teeny boppers who make millions of flash games about blowing his head off(hehe, those are fun!) and he's not ignoring centers of power. He accepts the difference between a political target and a civilian one. We don't. Who's screaming terror?
Slashdot Mirror
Essentially, it's the same thing. They call it a "rectenna", but it's the same thing - a rectifier and an antenna. Definitely stolen tech, but they're using a different method to implement it.
It's also worth noting that according to the article, they're not using the same frequency for their microwaves as a microwave does. A microwave is pretty well tuned (frequency wise, you can change the amplitude all you want) to heat up water (I think). This tech applies the "magnetron" in a different manner, so it may not end up causing cancer in the little birdies who fly through the high-strung virtual cables.
Question is, are they still doing local power distribution through standard "telephone poles"? Is this just for transport from the plant to the city hall, from whence it is dispersed across the city, or am I going to have to install a rectenna on my roof and pay $40 a month to keep it maintained?
High voltage power lines do not cause cancer. There may be a correlation, but it's probably about the same as the correlation of construction workers and cancer patients.
Microwave, however, does tend to cause cancer, boiling, and generally being baked. That's the idea. That's why there's lead in your microwave oven's faceplate. It's really not just there to make it harder for you to see the secrets of the microwave.
Look at the planes... they're not so "separate".
Do you need the DMCA, or not? I seem to see a lot of people saying the DMCA isn't needed, but I'm not so sure.
What provisions are there for redistribution of material via the internet, in federal law? Are there any, save the DMCA?
It is the 'Digital Millenium Copyright Act,' right? I mean, it specializes in copyright infringement violations on the internet. Isn't that essentially what the poster is asking about? If so, why do people keep saying "You don't need the DMCA," and if not, why does the DMCA exist at all?
Or rather, why was it voted into place?
Distributing music online is a violation of copyright license. Isn't that the main focus of the DMCA? I'm not a particular proponent of the DMCA, but it would seem that the theory behind it (not the make-RIAA-money theory, the protect-property-rights theory) is solid.
I suppose an appropriate analogy is a gun: In dishonorable hands, it is a tool for evil. In honorable hands, it can be a tool for good. The same is true of any tool; the DMCA is only a tool, even if it does have a bad history.
Ethics does tend to slow things down a little bit, yes. But if you just tell people to shut up, you're not leaving yourself open to what may be a fatal flaw in our science.
People tend to abandon ethics while they build, and I've seen this in comments for the past couple of days - regarding possible dangers as negligible and to be ignored. But they're not. We're moving forward in technology (and perhaps science) faster than any other time in history, but we abandon ethics at every possible turn. Yes, let's take a quick jaunt through history.
Let's look at physics - bombs. Or chemistry - chemical weapons. Or perhaps you think medicine is safe - viral "biological" weapons come from this field. Computers yield more ways to monopoly and oppression. Technology is typically accompanied by ethics, but then those ethics are traditionally thrown out the window in the name of "Progress." So yes, perhaps ethics are the enemy of progress, but perhaps progress isn't such a great thing after all.
It's nice that blogs can't be slashdotted. Makes the little guy's stories a lot easier to read from /....
Good point. *L* And yes, I have tested reality from time to time, finding it somewhat lacking, but it's the only one we've got, unfortunately.
My university has had filesharing in the lawbook for a couple of years now, after the RIAA started suing our Computing Services director (my boss). He's not sharing files, but he's being personally sued for allowing this to happen.
:-D
Just how much is the RIAA able to stretch the law? It doesn't matter that my boss can't actually be personally considered guilty in any way for the actions of the students. But the RIAA sues him anyway. It's like they're mimicking the actions of the trash who run around suing McDonald's for coffee that's too hot, and the like. Just play legal hardball, and most people will cave in.
My boss did. Filesharing is punished pretty severely - most people don't know that downloading is acceptable (strange RIAA thing, they don't bother with people who download, only people who upload), so now when someone sees KaZaA open on my computer, they give me a weird look and mutter about me losing my connection.
It's actually pretty nice. Now I get decent speed.
What is your background in law? You're saying a lot of facts without giving any basis for any of them.
If a law is broken in the act of obtaining evidence, it is not legally admissable, regardless of who acquires it. Decrypting encrypted transmissions is illegal. Reading someone's network traffic is illegal.
Start reading.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2002/
Is it wrong to want to make money? Microsoft is a corporation, they have a lot of salaries to pay, and they're not nonprofit. Have no illusions; they're out to make money. Is it any surprise that they don't want an anticommercial license like the GPL infecting their own license? Well, it shouldn't be.
/.'ers have complained that MS would not release any of its source code. We've complained that MS steals GPL source code. But now we're complaining that they're out to make money? Er.
Microsoft needs to sell its products. In the past,
I'm against big business as much as the next socialist, but I'm afraid Microsoft isn't my biggest worry right now. They're in the process of reform, cut them some slack and let them still make money, huh? Just be proud - they're afraid of OSS enough to do this whole reform thing.
This kind of a thing could potentially be used as a more sophisticated "exclusive filter" to counter spam propogation - emails that do not appear connected to a social network could simply be blocked entirely. This would require the "social network" to require two-way links - thus sending an email would not create a connection between two people, but sending and receiving an email would.
In any case, it's another way to look at spam protection.
The world of MUDs isn't dead, just hiding. I code for a mud in my spare time to, among other things, improve my programming ability. The world is still out there, still growing, and still what you remember. You've grown up, and such is admirable in a world where people play online games into their 30s and 40s, never realizing there's a real world that's far more interesting.
> They're not law makers.
I beg to differ, and hope you'll indulge me:
They're a corporation, aren't they? They have a vested interest in this particular matter, don't they?
It's possible that this technology could take 20-30 years to develop. But unlikely.
Watch the development of technology. It comes faster and faster as our population grows and our tools become more precise and more accurate.
We have better methods of communication now. Better organization in our companies. Resources are more readily available. More minds are put to the task of computing, even idly (slashdot itself). More minds pour over textbooks of theory and new technology. Advancement is not considered the realm of the geeks, but the realm of the populous, or more so than it used to be.
If this sort of thing started in the 50's with major electronics, no wonder it took 50 years to get this far! We hadn't done anything like this ever before. The sheer number of scientists working on electrical engineering back then was a pebble compared to the mountain working on quantum computing now, with better resources, a more solid foundation, and a clear goal.
20 to 30 years? Don't fool yourself.
/. effect on the library of congress? I don't think that's really possible.. but we could try ;)
Oh, my.. you're a troll, but what the hell. I've had the same thought in my head - "America is afraid" - for a while. And yeah, we are.. maybe it'll be good for us. But..
When was the last time you heard about a civilian getting an Anthrax letter? Have you heard anything about bombing homes, hotels, anything of that sort? Bombing national symbols, huge economic and political buildings, sending diseases like Anthrax (a noncontagious bio terrorist attack, with a striking area of less than a cubic mile?) to purely political offices?
Does that sound like terrorists to you? Or does bombing runs that take out who-knows-what (certainly not us) sound like terrorism? Not knowing whether the airplanes flying overhead are going to drop MRE's or smartbombs? "Oops.. that bomb missed and hit a small village.. our bad"
"I never respected Bush before. But the way he is handling this has made me reconsider." Sorry.. no.. I'm not buying that Bush is cool. I know better. His advisors are finally getting their asses in gear and telling him what to do. They were afraid of big bad Bush Sr before, but now that Bush Jr. has gotten us all into a war, someone has to get us out of it. Believe me, it's not GW Bush. It's his advisors, who've been there for a long time.
Come on, people. Think with your heads, not your hearts. Think about motivation and intelligence. Osama is a smart man. He's not targetting all of our teeny boppers who make millions of flash games about blowing his head off(hehe, those are fun!) and he's not ignoring centers of power. He accepts the difference between a political target and a civilian one. We don't. Who's screaming terror?